Former CJ Torkornoo seeks Supreme Court review over removal petition orders
Justice Torkornoo says the orders resulted in a miscarriage of justice and denied her the constitutional right to be heard.
Former Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo has returned to the Supreme Court seeking a review of orders made in proceedings connected to petitions for her removal from office.
The application challenges orders made by the apex court on May 28, 2026.
Justice Torkornoo says the orders resulted in a miscarriage of justice and denied her the constitutional right to be heard.
The motion was filed under Article 133 of the 1992 Constitution and Rules 54, 55 and 56 of the Supreme Court Rules.
It follows proceedings in two related actions that were consolidated before the court.
In her supporting affidavit, Justice Torkornoo argues that the court proceeded to make substantive orders despite noting that she had no legal representation in one of the matters at the time.
According to the filing, the court had recorded that her then lawyer, Godfred Yeboah Dame, had filed a notice withdrawing his representation.
She says the court also noted the absence of the Attorney-General, who is a defendant in both suits.
Justice Torkornoo contends that the court itself observed that it could not presume that she had been notified by her lawyer about the withdrawal.
Despite that, she says the court went ahead with steps that substantially affected the conduct of the case.
The orders included proceeding with the hearing and determination of the action.
The court also adopted memoranda of issues filed in both suits, consolidated the two actions and adjourned the consolidated matter for judgment.
Justice Torkornoo argues that those circumstances are exceptional and justify a review by the Supreme Court.
She maintains that she was not given a fair opportunity to be heard before the orders were made.
The former Chief Justice is also challenging how the proceedings and notices connected to the May 28 orders were allegedly served.
According to her, the court had directed that she be served with the proceedings of May 28 and other related notices.
She claims that this directive was not complied with.
Instead, she says the Registrar served the office of her lawyer in a separate suit on June 12, 2026.
Justice Torkornoo states that the lawyer, Kwabena Adu-Kusi, was outside the jurisdiction at the time.
She further claims that checks at the Supreme Court registry later revealed that the Registrar had obtained an ex parte order authorising service on the lawyer rather than on her personally.
She argues that the manner of service further affected her ability to participate properly in the proceedings.
The application is asking the Supreme Court to review its May 28 ruling and the consequential orders made in the consolidated actions.
The case forms part of the continuing legal processes arising from the petitions and proceedings that led to Justice Torkornoo’s removal from office.
